Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants recommend larger, relocated maintenance facility at Sugar Creek Golf Course; floodplain limits site options
Summary
A Dewberry/V3 assessment presented to the board recommended expanding the Sugar Creek maintenance facility from about 2,000 sq ft to roughly 4,000–5,000 sq ft but noted the existing site lies in the 100-year floodplain and regulatory floodway restrictions will constrain siting and storage options.
Consultants from Dewberry Architects and V3 Companies presented a facility maintenance assessment on Feb. 9 recommending a substantially larger maintenance building for Sugar Creek Golf Course and warned that floodplain and floodway limits restrict feasible building locations.
Bridal Kerner (Dewberry) said the current maintenance building is about 2,000 square feet and that United States Golf Association guidelines for a maintenance facility serving a 9-hole course are typically 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. "All these elements added together is about 4,000 square feet," Kerner said, adding that net-to-gross factors bring the total gross square footage to just under 5,000.
Kerner listed recommended program elements including administration (offices, reception, conference space), locker rooms, equipment repair space with a lift, a wash bay, parts rooms and storage for soil bins (mulch, stone, sand). He said pesticides and fertilizers cannot be stored at the Sugar Creek maintenance site because of proximity to wetlands and floodplain restrictions, and that those materials will remain near the clubhouse.
Steve Kranemore (V3 Companies) described site constraints, showing the existing building sits within the 100-year floodplain and material storage currently encroaches on the regulatory floodway. He said state Department of Natural Resources rules prohibit placing the building within the regulatory floodway and that the design team had pushed the building to the north and placed parking and circulation to the south where vehicle storage and parking are allowable.
Trustees asked about permeable parking in the floodway, costs, and whether the Elmhurst Park District intended to invest. Presenters said the golf-course enterprise fund paid for the study, the Park District participated in planning discussions and final costs and construction feasibility remain to be developed.
No formal action was taken; the presentation was informational and staff noted the village has a pre-existing intergovernmental relationship with the Park District that will need updating if work proceeds.
